Yeah, buddy, me too…
Yeah, buddy, me too…
Or Dick Cheney?
It means they’re looking for incriminating information without any evidence it exists. They’re “casting a wide net,” to use another fishing term, in hopes of finding something illegal, even if there’s no basis for them asking the questions in the first place.
EAP is a wrapper for a bunch of different protocols. EAP-MSCHAPv2, EAP-TLS, etc. If you have access to the network settings on a Windows machine you may be able to get more information there.
Also, try stack exchange: https://askubuntu.com/questions/279762/how-to-connect-to-wpa2-peap-mschapv2-enterprise-wifi-networks-that-dont-use-a-c
Not gonna lie, once you’re getting past single button combos, I’m mentally checking out. Ctrl+K and Ctrl+U in nano are good enough for me, and if I need to do something more complex like actual coding, I’ll use an editor with a full GUI as well.
I know i
and :wq
and that’s all I ever plan on learning
The parties aren’t the problem. Macron holds the presidency and appoints the PM. The largest (coalition) party is giving him a candidate AFTER compromises and he’s refusing STILL because he only wants a PM from his own party, who came in second (edit: not third, my bad, they did beat National Rally. They did come in third in the first round of voting though).
Yeah this headline is super misleading
Every friendly interview Trump has is just him “Yeah, uh huh, right, yup”-ing is way through whatever the “”“interviewer”“” is saying, then spewing whatever stream of consciousness he has going in the background. It’s why he never answers questions - he doesn’t listen to them, and if actually pressed, he gets pissed because he has to actually try to think.
Someone probably tried to tell him “we should change tactics” and he went “Uh huh, uh huh… WHERE’S HUNTER”
The irony of naming someone as the “woman shares name of man she believes was the one arrested for crime before the police released the name” before the police release the name is incredibly ridiculous.
A judge can rule that a case was unfair due to procedural issues, like that a jury arrived at its decision by evidence that shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. There are terms in this I’m not familiar with (I only know “runaway jury” from the John Grisham novel…), but that seems to be the basis of throwing this out. I’m sure Legal Eagle will cover something as big and weird as this in the next two weeks or so if you want well-explained legal analysis of the finer points.
Link to his channel? I would love to continue to watch cold take…
Edit: I think this is it
It was a Crowdstrike-triggered issue that only affected Microsoft Windows machines. Crowdstrike on Linux didn’t have issues and Windows without Crowdstrike didn’t have issues. It’s appropriate to refer to it as a Microsoft-Crowdstrike outage.
This bill is literally about the federal government purchasing flags, not private citizens…
Yeah, does anyone expect them to be like “Whoops, you got us”?
Before the release of further details by the authorities, others including the X owner, Elon Musk, tweeted questions on social media.
Tweets only happen on Twitter, not any “social media”, and if you’re going to call it X then call them posts. Or Xits.
The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:
The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying “Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don’t have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch.” Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says “how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it’s a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we’ll just tell the Executive to place ‘reasonable limits’ and call it a day.”)
Now the Court has said “That power you’ve ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it’s our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate.”
It’s a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won’t be able to say “no mine”. I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn’t.
So does Britain. Something like 75 of the last 100 years have had Conservatives in power. Obviously, what that means has changed over time, but it’s clear that every time Labour gets a shot at governing, Brits yell “Not good enough!” and put the Tories back in office.
This is exactly right - the exact same “Let’s burn down the system sell off the system to the highest briber bidder” sentiment that’s been ruling the Republicans has been eating away at the Tories as well. Now, every time leadership fails to make changes, they toss them out and put someone more extreme in their place (until you hit a Liz Truss)
I shop at S-Mart for all my letter-based shopping needs. I shop smart, at S-Mart